Last warning here, folks.
Edit out any reference to the politics of the situation with Kaep or face penalties. You can talk about how you view his football abilities, but that’s it.
This is not a discussion, do NOT reply to this post here.

Going to stop this right now. No politics in the Stadium.
If you can’t discuss whether or not Kaep should be brought in exclusively in terms of a football move, without bringing up the background (which is difficult, obviously) then simply don’t talk about him. Even passingly referencing it is an issue since it’s such a sensitive topic. Just don’t do it.
Otherwise take it to the Tailgate.

“History is history”... right.
I’m pretty sure if someone smacked someone else ten times in a row they’d likely flinch when the other raises his hand the eleventh time.
The feeling of dread and/or impending doom is definitely justifiable. It’s been borne out too many times for it not to be there. So seeing that manifest itself on gamedays at FedEx within the fanbase absolutely sucks, but it’s not unreasonable. It’s simply the reality.
Would I like it to be different? Yup. But I understand why it’s not and what it’ll take to change it. Hopefully it gets changed.
Not sure why you introduced drunkenness into this. That’s always stupid and a catalyst for moronic behavior, whether the fanbase is happy or sad.

I’m a bit stuck in between on this.
Norman has been here on a team that’s been pretty much decent his entire tenure. He hasn’t been through the trauma the fans have endured for going on two decades.
So I could understand his frustration with that and why it’d come off as ridiculous to him. The contrast for him from his time with the Panthers is likely striking.
That being said, he should study the history a bit more and understand where that angst comes from before spouting off about it. The fans have every right to be traumatized at this point. And while there are signs it’s gotten better, there are still black stains emanating out of the highest levels of the Skins FO that rekindle those traumas whenever they’re getting close to being buried.
So, he’s right in that it stinks it’s like that but he should recognize that it’s justifiable and not something to complain about. I won’t go so far as to say to him “shut up and fix it”, because it’s not something fixable by any one player. The solution can only come from the top and their decision-making.
Just one more environmental obstacle coaches/players who come here have to overcome in a long list of them, albeit a smaller one. It’s unfortunate.

That was actually @Jumbo who initially brought that up (well, openly, it’s always a topic among us).
As for me, I have repeatedly warned @bobandweave and others about bringing Kirk up directly or indirectly, then throwing a fit when others counter by saying something like “let’s move on” or “why are we bringing him up, he’s a Viking”.
Essentially, it’s “yeah, we’ll talk about him only when we want to and in the context we prefer, otherwise everyone shut up and stop it”. It’s an attempt to stifle discussion which is the antithesis of the board. It’s something you see all over the place in other social media outlets. Straight trollish behavior.
Similarly, posters will “like” certain posts about Kirk, then when the discussion turns away from the context they prefer, they make posts or “like” posts telling everyone to shut up and move on.
As long as we allow it, Kirk can be brought up with regards to Alex and/or Bruce. There is a legitimate and healthy discussion to be had there. And so long as it maintains some semblance of that, we’ll continue to allow it.
Until that changes (there’s definitely evidence to suggest it has or it will) we’ll put a stop to it per our role as mods. Otherwise, we don’t need anyone attempting to do so when it suits their agenda.
Bobandweave should not have said he was warned not to talk about Kirk. It’s actually quite the opposite. That’s a gross misrepresentation and I’m glad you guys noticed that.
———————————————-
As for this thread, you know, it’s really odd.
I’m super happy and enjoying this season overall at 6-3 (though the losses have absolutely sucked, lol, they’re not even anywhere near a “moral victory”, yeesh). The defense has been fun to watch for the most part and our special teams (particularly our kicking game) has been excellent. Magnificent even! Of course, AD has been wonderful as well. Good times.
I’m also extremely concerned about Alex’s limitations thus far and the very legitimate possibility that he ends up being the biggest hindrance to real playoff-level contention.
And, yet, I have absolutely zero cognitive dissonance regarding that and feel perfectly fine with airing those concerns in a thread about, uhm, Alex. In fact, the concern is there specifically because I want to keep enjoying myself.
Which is really weird, right? Because I keep reading posts, in this thread about Alex, telling me that (because of those perfectly reasonable feelings) I’m not really happy about our record and I need to enjoy this. That one coming into a thread about Alex and discussing the presently obvious flaws in his game is indicative of being miserable overall or something. That extreme conflation of QB performance to a team’s win/loss record is perfectly fine and acceptable and not utterly nonsensical as proven a thousand times over.
I mean, am I in another thread that’s about celebrating our season as a whole or even a particular unit playing well, where many are unjustly airing those concerns about Alex? The mind ponders. ?
I must be crazy. Enjoying this season and having fun while largely being frustrated, disappointed and rightfully concerned regarding a major team strength in the past that has now become a glaring weakness due to QB play from someone we heavily invested in.
That’s impossible! Can’t be! I must be lying to myself and deep down I’m absolutely miserable. Thank you ES for waking me up to how deeply unhappy I truly am, all this time I’ve been blissfully asleep. ?
Alright, no more tongue in cheek silliness. This particular win has me extra pleased because, with the Eagles losing as well, it gives us some big time cushion. It also came against the type of opponent our formula usually fails against (and you can clearly see why that is during the game, but man were the Bucs stupid), which was great. We obviously have a bunch of things we need to “get right” as a team, with the most important thing being Alex Smith and the passing offense.
Will it ever happen? I’m not sure. And with every week that passes by the hope is diminishing it will. It’s just... anemic. But the cushion, record-wise, is there and we can afford a little more patience now. That’s massive.
We’re distancing ourselves from the organizationally pervasive “panic” atmosphere (that Jay has actually overcome very well during his tenure here) where catastrophic decisions are made and the inevitable, total collapse follows. The one that we’ve seen far too many times as fans.
Is the formula (great running game and defense, ball control, win the TO battle, etc...) that got us here sustainable in the modern NFL? Extremely doubtful. It works, you can win, but even the rare teams that pull it off during an entire season too often fall apart the next season, since it’s so hard to maintain the many moving parts in terms of personnel required to do so.
We really do need Alex to improve. We simply paid too much. It’s damn near impossible to win with the amount of resources invested there with the type of production we’re getting now. It was oft-repeated here how moving on from Kirk would mean we could save all that cap space and use it elsewhere to build a stronger team.
Well, we moved on and “all this cap space saved” hasn’t resulted in much. Furthermore, we lost a draft pick in a spot we’ve actually been effective in finding players as well as a key young piece on our defense. It’s a minor miracle that we’ve attained a record like this with this type of resource management from our FO. You just don’t see that around the league, few can ever overcome it. I give major credit to the coaches as well as our college scouts for that.
But Alex has got to do way more if we’re ever going to truly contend, and that’s a damn shame considering how close we’ve been the last couple years. There are a few big plays to be made every game that he’s missing. They’re easy. The scheme works. Hit those, and suddenly we’ll be rolling. Suddenly, the formula won’t be so one-dimensional and rigid, we’ll be able to succeed in answering the dynamic questions various opponents present.
I’m happy that possibility exists while we’ve got some decent room for error now. How awesome would it be if we really capitalize?

Can’t do this here (you’ve received a warning for rule 5, being disrespectful to your fellow members), this isn’t that type of board. Please edit this out immediately.
———————-
Something else I wanted to address.
@bobandweave I’ve already been through this with you in the past, among others. And this’ll be a reminder for everyone else, as well, as you’re certainly not the only one to do it.
You don’t get to allude to Kirk in your first couple of posts in this thread, then specifically mention the “previous QB” in your third post here, and then tell others when they respond to “not make it about Kirk” or to “move on”. If you’re going to bring him up, expect others to counter. If you don’t like it, don’t bring him up yourself.
I mean, this shouldn’t be hard yet we continually get the same group of people who have no issue bringing him up in one context (and/or obsessively “liking” every post in that context), but in another context wanting everyone to “stop bringing him up” or just “move on”. There are degrees of hypocrisy we’re willing to tolerate from you folks (and, believe me, we see mountains of it), but when it transgresses the bounds of what the purpose of this board is (discussion about the Skins which, yes, does include how they handled the QB position), it’s unacceptable. Let us mods handle what people can discuss or not.
As @Jumbo has already stated, we may come to the conclusion that it’s simply not worth the trouble dealing with this and that NO Kirk discussion will be allowed in the Stadium (this particular issue being a big reason for that), but until we do that no one should be telling others to stop posting about this or that or what they can or can’t discuss, especially when they themselves bring that topic up when it suits them.

It’s been some time since I really dug into a debate here... so I’ve got some built up energy to expend, lol. This’ll be fun.
For someone who is so concerned with "overpaying average to above average" QBs, I'm surprised you call $10.8 million of cap space harmless. No, it's not. Like you said, the goal is to have the least amount possible, so the fact that it's a very real possibility should be discussed and should be included in any talk of what Alex costs over three years.
The fact that you consider what I said an "attempt" to "decrease the gap" of Kirk's contract and Alex's says a lot. The only thing I "attempted" was to introduce a basic economic principle in that one should discuss every factor that goes into Alex's contract, including the dead cap as well as the assets we lost to acquire him from KC. I compared it, at the end, to Kirk's contract since it's constantly brought up by those, like you, who "attempt" to increase the gap and act like Alex is this massive bargain over the course of the next three years.
So my entire point is that after three years, it's likely we'll move on from Alex both based on the structure of the contract itself along with his value as a QB and finally his age. Here, you're essentially admitting that after the 3 year period much will likely change. You just don't want to accept that the most reasonable position to hold is that we'll move on. There is plenty evidence to suggest that's what will happen, including the history of contracts similar to his.
Smith's contract doesn't gain value as the years stack up because his price also goes up in 4th and 5th years considerably.
Either way, even if you don’t accept that as the most reasonable position, you still need to include the entire cost when discussing his contract over a three year period versus a four or five year period, as doing so leaves out significant cap ramifications as well as what we’ve lost in acquiring him.
You wrote the above twice. Aside from this being extremely annoying, I hope you can understand that this is a discussion board where the majority of posts are opinion-based. The question is, which opinion is presented with more evidence and/or is more objective and/or well-grounded? Writing stuff like the above does nothing to further the discussion. Just ignore the points if you don't want to address them, but this type of posting here violates two of our rules (3 & 12), though not necessarily in an egregious manner, so no worries.
I said vague at best, disingenuous at worst. Hopefully you were just too vague and/or general for me.
This isn't about Alex's plans. I'm sure he'd love to play until he was 50. But he's not the kind of guy you want to pay the type of money that contract has for him in his 4th and 5th year just on his abilities alone. Factor in his age and, yes, it becomes very difficult to see him here after 3 years. I’m not applying some innovative or unique ideas to contracts that have guaranteed versus non-guaranteed years in them.
I'm not going to even reiterate what I said here, just going to post what I said so you can read it again:
There's no way your take away should've been something as simple as "you disagree QBs are playing longer these days?", after reading that.
You are conflating two issues here incorrectly. One can both be satisfied with the direction of the roster overall while being frustrated at the trade in terms of resource management. The latter is also separate, to a degree, from how Alex is viewed as a QB. I mean, are you saying that being satisfied overall means no one can recognize any faults or mistakes made on the way?
Not sure why this was brought up at all as the focus has been about including the dead cap involved in Alex's contract along with the assets given up to acquire him when looking at his total cost over a three year period.
That's ok to value those intangibles, but I'd hesitate to say a rookie would need to sit under Smith for more than one year. Jay has already shown an ability to develop QBs quickly with Dalton and we've seen Mahomes need no more than a year to gain whatever he needed to from Smith, if that was even a thing at all.
So, yeah, I shudder at the nonchalance of your statement there to "draft a rookie whenever". I think it's a bit more urgent than that, and with good reason.
I think it's important we address the position as soon as we can, but I'm a proponent of a pretty extreme version of BPA where I assign very little weight to need (I believe need is much more of a factor within Free Agency, as do most teams when they discuss this, including ours), so I definitely wouldn't want to go into a draft saying "we need to spend a 1st or 2nd" or whatever.
I'd hope the FO recognizes where someone they like at QB will go and assesses the value of ensuring they get him, whether that means trading up for him or not. It just may be that they properly recognize they can wait for a guy later on that they really like. So, basically, it all depends.
But the idea here that you're espousing is certainly contrary to that. You're essentially fixing them into a position where they simply don't take one no matter what. I think that's incredibly foolish and short-sighted. If a guy they believe can be a franchise QB for years to come falls to them, they'd be incredibly stupid to not select him because of some predetermined notion of "not drafting a QB in rounds 1 or 2".
Make believe? My goodness. It's a totally reasonable assumption that Alex will be here for three years and no more. The structure of the contract itself suggests that along with the other factors I've previously stated.
So, according to you, I'm ripping your position from my "...make believe NFL world of zero dead cap". I mean, what!?
You're all over the place, honestly. We are NOT discussing how much dead cap is reasonable for an NFL franchise to carry within a year. If we were, then maybe I can see where you're coming from. You yourself have stated that the lesser the better, obviously, so taking ANY amount of dead cap from ANYONE'S contract into account when discussing their cap hits is significant.
You've went from discussing Alex's cap hit within a three year window (which is where I posited the very reasonable economics of including his dead cap hit that occurs immediately after) to discussing his contract as a 4-5 year deal. Those are two different discussions with different numbers involved. We'll get to that.
Yes, dead cap is indeed a part of the NFL. It's also a part of Alex's contract specifically. Hence, this discussion.
I have no idea where you get that from. That is total speculation on your part and you don't even give any evidence of that. You just say "it's clear in my view". Why?
It's just as likely that Alex is not worth a single penny more than they paid him and that he maximized his value. We don't know if the Skins even negotiated at all what the price would be to bring it down to what is acceptable to them. We do know, from reliable sources, that another team didn't want to pay him as much as we were willing to.
As far as this very weird and arbitrary ranking you keep mentioning about QBs 8-25... man, that is, uhm, weird and arbitrary to be totally redundant.
There are so many problems with it I don't even know where to begin.
First, who are these QBs in your mind that rank there?
Second, to think the value of QB #8 is anywhere near the value of QB #25 in terms of "moving the needle" is outrageously simplistic and would be devastating to any FO who applied that line of thinking. Imagine a GM saying “meh, pay QB #25 about the same as QB #8, doesn’t make much of a difference either way”. ?
I’d imagine him being instantly fired.
For instance, there's no way we made the Alex trade and paid him what we did thinking he's going to be around QBs #20-25. I find it utterly confounding that someone like you who's been constantly proliferating his fear about overpaying "average to above average" QBs has no problem overpaying for one that has played below average thus far.
Now, I get that we all hope Alex will improve, and I believe he will as well, but right now it should be a major concern, right? Shouldn't you be real worried we've got a below average QB (according to your own words) right now at a price you think is average (disagree with that myself, but for the sake of this argument)? And, if you aren't worried, doesn't that belie your entire philosophy, since you're just happy we're 5-2 and overpaying him hasn't hurt us, which means the whole "overpaying" thing you constantly harp on is way overblown?
Finally, you're viewing these QBs as totally static entities versus the dynamic ones they are in reality. QB #8 can become QB #5; and QB #20 can become QB #25; and QB #13 can become QB #7 or regress to QB #19; etc...
A good Front Office will operate with foresight, valuing what players will become and paying them accordingly versus what players have been without projection. They’ll also recognize strengths and weaknesses properly so as to surround them with personnel that highlights those strengths and minimizes those weaknesses. Which increases their chances of progression.
I'll just leave it there, though. There are a ton of reasons I can get into why this obsession you have with "QBs 8-25 not moving the needle enough" is, again, weird and arbitrary.
Anyone paying attention will recognize that Kirk's deal isn't really that ground-breaking, especially once the novelty of the phrase “the first fully guaranteed contract ever” wore off.
The reality is, most NFL contracts are for 2-3 years. After that, most contracts either get renegotiated or the team moves on as they enter the non-guaranteed portion of the contract.
Furthermore, that non-guaranteed portion of the contract usually has pretty hefty yearly sums in it. For instance, Alex's contract in his 4th year goes up about 35% in terms of cap hit when compared to his first year cap hit and about 12% more from his third year - in other words, it's a significant chunk of change and likely as much, if not more, than he'd get as an unrestricted FA.
So, sure, does Kirk get to hit unrestricted FA at the end of three years and maximize his worth? Yes. But acting like he wouldn't have been paid a lot more anyway that year, or that he wouldn't be able to renegotiate, or even that the team might want to move on at that point is naive to say the least.
I don't know where you're getting "10% or less". Over the Cap has it at 10.4% or more every year. Minor nitpick, I know, but let's fix it before @UK SKINS FAN '74comes storming in.
Maybe I should get all snarky and say something like "in your attempt to increase the gap between Kirk and Alex's contract", but I won't.
The interesting thing here is I didn't actually state whether it was good or bad, I just said it's important that we include that amount when discussing Alex's cap hits for the next three years. Now, I think it's horrendous as a whole when you take into everything we've spent on the position from 2016 and on, but I digress.
If we're going to look at it in terms of a three year contract, then the dead cap hit in the 4th year absolutely matters as it's part of the portion guaranteed to him and we're only benefiting from his services for those three years.
If we're looking at it in terms of a 4 year or 5 year deal, then suddenly the AAV that @Morneblade was unjustly criticized for posting is actually more correct. Because then Alex's deal suddenly becomes worth more than a total of $71 million guaranteed (including the dead cap), it becomes a total of $90 million for 4 years (including $5.4 million dead cap) or $111 million for 5 years (no dead cap since that's the full term). The non-guaranteed portion becomes a part of the contract.
Do you see the difference? It's economically unjustified to jump all over the place and talk about Alex's contract either as a three year deal or more than that without including the total costs (and, yes, the assets given up in the trade should absolutely be included).
Seems like a lot of "stuff happens", often unprecedented and just as often an unnecessary hindrance, when it comes to the Skins' top executives.
I mean, geez, what's the point of this if you're just going to throw out comments like "stuff happens" and downplay anything that doesn't fit into the positive reinforcement you're looking for? Oh well, Fuller, oh well, 3rd rounder, oh well dead cap, oh well Alex is playing well below average or worse right now, meh meh meh, stuff happens.
Come on, now. ?
Again, you're doing some serious conflating of positions here. I’m not even sure why you’re bringing this up in a thread about Alex, but ok.
I’m going to address this point by point since you went there because I've liked the direction of this roster before you ever started posting here consistently. Maybe you should try really getting a grasp of where I'm coming from and going through the posting history before you tell me what I've made clear? I'm going to provide links to some of those posts so you can do just that.
In terms of being fiscally responsible, I think the FO under Bruce has actually been irresponsible there more often than we think. No, they don't go crazy in Free Agency and spend big on over the hill players like they used to, but they do give out too many contracts to bargain bin players who end up contributing little value and, on the aggregate, take up a considerable amount of cap space. Instead of quality it’s quantity, so it’s not like they’re actually saving. The positive is that we can generally get out of those contracts easily, but the problem is that the collective production from those players doesn’t amount to the cap space they take up, never mind that it can delay the development of other younger players as they take up reps.
And, of course, two franchise tags in a row at the QB position is anything but "fiscally responsible". So it's definitely a lot more nuanced than just, "oh, they're being fiscally responsible". In some ways, yes, in others, heck no!
Valuing draft picks? That's been pretty good overall as has been our college scouting the last few years. I've never stated otherwise and was probably one of the most ecstatic members on this board when we selected interior Dlinemen in the 1st round the last couple years. Still, I'd like to see someone within the organization who excels at personnel-evaluating be able to implement an overarching vision and build the team accordingly. I think it's important it all ties together, and there’s so much more to team-building than just hitting on draft picks (for example, Payne is the perfect complement to Allen since one is better at occupying blocks and space while the other is better at winning one on ones, that’s the kind of stuff we need more of). Hence why most successful organizations have that kind of a person leading the charge.
Developing younger players? No one on this board has defended Jay Gruden and his staff more than I have. One of the most significant justifications I give for said defense is the fact that they've excelled at developing younger players.
Consistency through the organization? Again, in some ways, yes, in others no. Hiring a GM, firing that GM, then not replacing that position shouldn't ever be considered a display of "consistency". Jay getting saddled with RG3, having to wait until Scot convinces Dan to start Kirk, and then losing the guy he developed after two consecutive franchise tags is not “organizational consistency” (and I think the QB can be considered an “organizational” figure, or as many like to label it, “the face of the franchise”). They’ve improved their college scouting department considerably, so that’s good. It seems like they’ve elevated the right people as well within the scouting department like Kyle Smith, which is key and certainly helps maintain consistency. But that took far, far too long under Bruce. He’s going on 9 years here!
Can get into a lot more about that, but I’ll just leave it there.
After the 2015 season, I was okay with the roster moves because I viewed us as still within the building phase of establishing a stronger core/depth. I understood that it was more important to build that core/depth than attack positions of weakness, like the Dline, because we were too far away from being a complete roster anyway. We just needed to improve where we can as the opportunities presented themselves. However, I, along with quite a few others, recognized just how lacking our Dline was in terms of resources put into it. We saw that as a major problem going into the 2016 season and that panned out.
Unfortunately, the other spots on the defense I thought would be strengths with certain players like Spaight and Everett panning out ended up failing, too. In the end, our defense suffered considerably and so did the entire team as a result. The difference is, none of that came as a real surprise to us so we weren’t losing our minds when we missed the playoffs.
Moving on to the 2017 offseason, this is where I felt the roster was at a point where it was solid enough in most areas, maintain the roster as is (losing one of Djax or Garcon was assumed) and that we just needed to aggressively address the Dline and solve the running game be it via a dynamic back or more help on the Oline.
It was frustrating to see that not happen.
Instead, we let both Djax and Garcon go. We signed McGee and McClain instead of a legitimate difference maker at the position. Suffice to say, it was disappointing and panned out as expected. We were extremely fortunate Jonathan Allen fell to us in the draft, but that was really dangerous to go into it assuming we’d be able to get him. That is not a way to live as a Front Office. And we saw how fast the fall off occurred as soon as he got hurt, which proved once again that the resources put into the position was lacking.
What’s frustrating is that we could’ve been a contender much earlier than we are now, and it didn’t take a rocket scientist to see it. It just took better executive leadership from Allen to where they understood the moment and got slightly more aggressive. Knowing when to strike and when not to is important. Being flexible enough to adapt no matter what your core philosophy is about is key to any successful operation.
Which brings me to my final point. When you ask me if I’m happy we’re 5-2, I’ve got to say, that just comes off as straight up trolling. I mean, really? Of course I am! Why are you bringing that up in a thread about Alex’s issues right now? What does that have to do with anything? Did I post elsewhere suggesting I’m unhappy? For God’s sake, my first post in months was out of excitement regarding the trade for Ha Ha!
I recognize that the biggest reason for our record has been the defensive play, and specifically the Dline. The next would be Adrian Peterson. Now look up at what I told you how I felt about the team going into the 2017 season and where I was disappointed. What do you see? That’s called vindication.
It comes at absolutely NO surprise that we’re doing well with a Dline that has major assets invested into it and that our running game has taken off with improved personnel there. THIS IS WHAT WE’VE BEEN SCREAMING FOR TO HAPPEN!
Am I happy? Heck yeah. Do I also recognize this didn’t need to take so long, that we could’ve done all of this with better QB play from a player we drafted and developed on our own? Is that frustrating to think about? Of course!
I’m concerned that Alex might not improve enough to make us contenders. That the passing game will limit us.
If we had Kirk’s exact level of play from last year on this team, with this defense and this running game, we are absolutely contenders and there’s no question about it. If we want to argue from the standpoint that Kirk’s contract as it is with Minny would’ve been an hindrance (that’s ignoring that had we dealt with it correctly we could’ve signed him much cheaper much earlier, but let’s just go with that for argument’s sake), then maaaaybe Kirk’s contract would’ve kept us from signing a guy like Richardson (and even that’s debatable), but that’s it. So it would’ve been (Kirk - Richardson) versus (Alex + Richardson) - (Fuller and a 3rd round pick). That’s tough to think about.
And we saw Kirk still perform with a decimated Oline and receiving group that didn’t include Richardson last year.
So, yes, those of us who were asking for those things Alex is now surrounded with have every right to be frustrated that we took a step back in the passing offense in the process.
And who suffers the most for it? Those within the organization who actually know what they’re doing, like Jay. I want to see these people set up for success, not provided obstacle after obstacle after obstacle.
What I see is a Head Coach who came here without a first round pick his first year, had a dysfunctional FO structure above him, only for that to supposedly be fixed with the Scot hire, only for that to fail and then go back to a mishmash of a structure, only to pay elite money in consecutive franchise tags to keep the guy he aided in developing, only to then lose him for nothing while having to trade a stud slot corner and a third rounder while paying out another hefty contract to another QB who was supposed to just be “plug and play” and has been anything but that.
From 2016-2020 (sticking with viewing Alex’s contract as a three year deal), we will have spent a whopping $115 million, Kendall Fuller and a 3rd round pick on the position. And what do we have to show for it? Developing Kirk for another team to benefit from and then having to acclimate Alex Smith, hoping it’ll improve but having no certainty it will. That type of spending should be reserved for the elite of the elite, yet this is what we’ve done!
Look around the league and tell me who has managed their resources as horrendously bad as that? Do you not understand how that affects everyone within the organization? I’m seeing coaches and players of like or less quality than ours get so much more from their Front Offices while everyone ignores the resources they’ve benefited from and simply hails them as brilliant strategists and awesome players. They then get compared to our guys like it’s apples to apples. Ugh.
Yes, that frustrates me because I actually care about them succeeding. I actually care about these human beings enjoying the best possible environment conducive to their success. I don’t view them as nothing but objects to be used and discarded while they wear the burgundy and gold, where I simply root for the colors and nothing more. It’s just not my style.
If that’s just too much for you to take, and you think those of us who think like that are livid about being 5-2... well, you’re suffering from a severe case of Allenitis and maybe you should start writing press releases for him.
I’m extremely happy for Jay and co. I’m very impressed with how the players and coaches have overcome a terribly pedestrian passing offense, which was once the only consistent strength of the team, in obtaining their current record.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be seriously concerned that Alex will remain a liability and that we’ll never be able to truly contend with him at the helm. And that’s not saying he brings zero to the table, just that he brings very little and it’s not enough. It’s not even his fault, but it’s really unfortunate because we were so friggin close. It’s unfortunate because I know damn well who will get attacked and targeted by the fans because of it. It’s unfortunate because I’ve seen how often the owner and his top exec also target the wrong people within the organization and create an atmosphere of division and factionalism that leads to their regression and/or demise, which only renews a cycle of the same thing happening again with whomever replaces them.
Hopefully Alex improves enough that we don’t have to witness all that. I’m praying for that, as much as you’d think otherwise. But, yeah, it’s frustrating that the concern is even there and it can take away from the sheer joy of watching these guys succeed like they are right now.

Yeaahh, I wouldn’t say it’s as much “personal perspective” as it is simply reality when talking about a contract structured to have an easier out after three years for a 34 year old QB. I’m not surprised either, lol.
You appear here to be correcting me, as if I said the dead cap money would occur in his 3rd year. Sorry, but I never said that. You might want to look over what I posted again.
Here’s where we differ and where you probably got confused, and I think it’s a confusion on your part in terms of some economic principles I’m applying.
It doesn’t make as much sense economically to spread it over 4 years. That dead cap money could’ve and would’ve been used for contracts we signed in 2019 and 2020, so it affects our cap previous to that. Furthermore, in this instance Alex is no longer on the team and he provided his services for only 3 years. So, yes, it makes more sense to view it as $73.7 million over three years of cap space. That’s what you paid to have him for three years, and that final $13.5 million counts against that.
Again, that dead cap is not only affecting us in 2021 and beyond, it affects us before that for someone we are not gaining any benefit from in that year.
I made sure to explain that in my post. That we should account for that dead cap that occurs were we to move on after his 3rd season, that is a solid assumption as to what will happen, and why it affects us previous to that. You ignored all that, unfortunately. ?
Furthermore, you consistently bring up the Alex contract in terms of three years, so since that’s what YOU want to do when discussing his “cap percentage”, I think it’s unfair you ignore the potential dead cap as well as the assets lost in the trade. You either don’t talk about his value against the cap, or talk about it while including the entire cost. Your way makes zero sense economically.
I think the vast majority of people would agree with my assumption versus yours that the organization would want to move on after year 3. The structure of the contract itself suggests it, and I don’t think Alex is the caliber of player that you hold on to into their late thirties.
I don’t agree with your “new norm is for franchise QBs and others (backups and journeymen) to continue playing...” statement, as that’s at best vague and at worst disingenuous.
That new norm might only really fit in with top tier franchise QBs. As for backups and journeymen, the vast majority of them are out of the league by then on the aggregate. Those who stay are being paid like backups and journeymen, not anywhere near Alex’s rate right now. So that has nothing to do with anything since he’s neither a top tier franchise QB, nor just a backup journeyman getting paid like that.
A little more nuance needs to be applied to that thinking. It’s not just “welp, I see a bunch of old QBs playing now so that means it applies to Alex and his contract”.
No, my opinion actually includes forward thinking and, unlike yours, isn’t based off of the most unrealistic of expectations.
That sounds like an awful plan to me and likely anyone else who’s got a solid enough read on Alex’s abilities. I really don’t want to see Alex here for a 4th year. It seems like EVERY franchise he plays for can’t wait to move on from him. And, like I said, judging by the contract as it’s setup by the team, neither do they. It’s not an accident they set it up for a more convenient out after three years, as their “forward thinking” includes the likelihood that they’d want out.
Hopefully we get a good rookie prospect in here either next year or in 2020 so we can cut bait by 2021, his fourth year.
Your plan suggests that we’d wait until the 2021 draft to nab a rookie, have Alex play his 4th season here, then go into 2022 with our rookie QB.
Hold on while we all collectively puke.
I think the majority of Skins fans are looking forward to us getting some legitimate prospects at QB this upcoming draft or the next at the very latest. Waiting until the 2021 draft with Alex going into his fourth year? I’m confident you’re in the minority there and I’m pretty sure the last thing anyone would label that as would be “forward thinking”.
This is probably the least sensical thing you said in your entire post. I can hear anyone who has even the most basic understanding of economic principles gasp when reading this.
First, I think you meant to say a 2nd year player after the third year of Alex, not fourth. Because these numbers don’t make sense, then.
Second, in what world do we add dead cap money to anything and call it a good thing or forward thinking? Wouldn’t we rather just NOT have that dead cap space and it’d be even less of a percentage?
But most of all, you’re arguing against yourself. Because while you want to spread the dead cap over a 4 or 5 year period in this case, you acknowledge that we’re paying that premium to have the rookie “learn under Alex” the year prior. So it’s being used for what occurs before it, not after it, like I said. And, like I said, it affects how the team structures any long term contracts they sign before that, as well.
Franchises don’t look at cap space on a per year basis, they usually have a 3-5 year lump sum outlook that goes up to their longest-termed contracts. So they know how much they can maneuver and when.
Except, one guy is 34 and the other is 30.
And the benefit for the team here is that they can actually get out of the contract with less damage than were they to stay into it. Which is what you’ve been suggesting they won’t want to do. Otherwise, the contract is in the player’s benefit if he’s not as good as his salary and the team is forced to pay it.
So, no, it’s not always as simple as the player wants short term and the team wants long term. Again, you need a bit more nuance applied to your stance. Many players, especially at positions that take a toll on their bodies, want more long term security. It’s not always to their advantage to get out fast.
I think it’s safe to say Alex won this contract big time. It’s what he wanted and what we gave him. And judging by the reports @Skinsinparadise, no other team wanted to do. Very little about this is good for the team economically, especially if his play doesn’t improve considerably. If he ends up improving to where he’s putting up top 15 numbers consistently, then there’ll be some relief, but even that wouldn’t change the 3 year outlook as it gets very dangerous to assume he’ll continue at that level, especially when his athleticism is a big part of his game.
Lol, you are all over the place, man. You spent the entire time arguing about how good it is we can keep him for a 4th year and that your “personal perspective” differs from mind in that we will, then end it saying we agree about how it’s nice for the team be able to get out after 3 years.
And if you care less about losing Fuller and a 3rd round pick when discussing Alex’s contract and value to the team, then I have no idea why you decided to even respond. You aren’t anywhere close to looking at this in terms of basic economics and team-building, which is what I’m doing. You’re simply saying “I like Alex and everything this team does, here’s my attempt in justifying that”.
I mean, come on now. You can’t throw out that trade when talking about what Alex costs the team (to no fault of his own, of course). Really!?
Take it up with them here:
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/washington-redskins/alex-smith-3337/
They’re usually correct, so I’ve got no reason to question it. Might be something to the contract you’re missing.
Either way, it’s still a significant chunk that shouldn’t be overlooked when discussing Alex being here over the next three seasons.

Re: the cap space debate.
Dead cap in the amount of $13.5 million going into his 4th year should be accounted for, though. Can’t ignore that if we’re just posting his three year numbers like that’s all he’s counting against the cap. If we move on after 2020 (extremely likely), we lost that cap space and there’s no getting it back.
So it’s like losing an additional $4.5 million per year in cap space over these three seasons due to having Alex Smith ($13.5 million in dead cap). That’s how his contract should be looked at. Yes, all that money is gone in 2021, but teams consider future cap as part of their strategy when signing players to contracts, so it shouldn’t be viewed as just 2021 cap space that’s lost. It’s cap space we could use for contracts we hand out in 2019 and 2020.
Hence the $71 million guaranteed figure, which comes into play whether we move on or not after the 3rd season. Which means he does rank pretty high in terms of cap hit at the QB position.
The way @wit33 is putting it when he talks about cap hits ignores a significant chunk of those guarantees. If we’re going to only look at cap hit for three years (assuming we let him go after that - a solid assumption), then Alex costs us a total of $73.7 million in cap space ($60.7 million in cap hits 2018-2020, plus $13.5 million dead cap in 2021). You can’t ignore that dead cap money, because it’s a hindrance and was lost due to Alex’s guaranteed portion of his contract.
In comparison since it often comes up, Kirk costs his team exactly $84 million in cap space over the course of three years and nothing else. No dead cap if they move on. So that’s really the comparison to be made in a three year window ($84 million vs. $73.7 million, which is a negligible $10.3 million difference over three years or a $3.4 million/year difference).
Now, we can argue about what happens if we keep Alex after the third season (at 37 years old) and how we should look at that, but I’m not sure anyone would view that as a good thing right now no matter how much he costs.
Finally, when talking about what Alex costs, you also can’t ignore that to acquire him we lost two significant assets in Fuller and a 3rd round pick (our last two 3rd rounders were Fuller himself and Fabian Moreau).
So overall the cost of Alex Smith over the course of three seasons is $73.7 million in cap space (which ranks pretty high in terms of QB contracts and is not anywhere near “average”) + Kendall Fuller + 2018 3rd round pick.
The only way this way of looking at it changes is if he plays well enough that we want to keep him after the three year guaranteed portion is up, in which case we’d likely restructure his contract anyway.